Bekologist

a graph from NYCDOT and their 'cycling safety indicator' - in the last decade ridership in New York City has tripled while serious injuries and fatalities trend has been flat.

significant reduction in the indexed severe crash rate in NYC over the last decade.



from a NYT article outlining the helmet policies in NYC.

/bike-helmets-arent-required

Hippiebrian

Wow, it wasn't helmets that made cycling safer, despite what some might tell you?Wow, separate cycling infrastructure being built actually attracted cyclists AND appears to have made cycling safer? And just when I was going to throw the towel to the V.C.'s...sigh...

CB HI

Don't give up VC so quickly for these sham claims.

Bek knows this has been beaten to death, but he still pounds on the dead horse to try and convince some new cyclist of the false claims.

Most cyclist injuries are from kids getting hit (use to be 70 to 90% of the injuries). Now that moms will not let their kids ride anymore and they drive them to school, their injuries have significantly dropped. This balances out the increase of adult injuries due to dangerous bike lanes and the increase in adult cycling. This so called study counted increases in adult cycling but did not count the decrease in child cycling and yet it included all age injuries.

When Bek or these other false profits are willing to provide serious studies that break out the injured by age, seriousness, location and activity then take consideration. Otherwise, understand that Bek is just quacking.

PS - there is no actual evidence for the 'safety in numbers' claim either.

Hippiebrian

More people cycling. No helmet requirements. More bicycle infrastructure. No increase in cyclist injuries despite a 300% increase in cycling. Hard not to put two and two together. Evidently, also hard for people to see things that disagree with what they believe in.

CB HI

100% of humans that died, drank water within 30 days of their death. Therefore water is the source of all human death.

Hard not to put two and two together. Evidently, also hard for people to see things that disagree with what they believe in.

It is easy to misuse statistics to prove almost anything, as is being done with the OPs claims.

Hippiebrian

Really, I just believe (I could be wrong, but the numbers, espescially in this case, seem to indicate otherwise) that the problem is the automobiles, and that separating, as much as possible, the cars and the bicycles can only help reduce injuries. That means separated bike lanes, as they have done in New York as well as here in Long Beach, as well as clearly defined bike lanes on roads, preferably outside of door zones.Where V.C. comes in is where these things don't exist yet. Sure, I have no problem riding, taking my lane and dodging traffic here and when I take the Blue Line to L.A., and it is safe enough for me. That being said, separate lanes are safer and should be the ultimate goal. Not only is it safer, but it is percieved as safer, thus attracting more cyclists and getting more fuel sucking polluting death machines off the streets.And really, it is hard to argue with a 300% increase in cycling without any increase in injury.

CB HI

Most collisions occur at intersections. Since separated lanes only increase the conflict at intersections, how are they safer?

As to your 'hard to argue', show me the study break out by age of increase in cyclist and injuries.

robberry

A motorist tried to run me off the road, then got out of his car threatening me, and asking to fight me. I snapped a photo of his license plate, and sped off. I tried to chase me down, but I went through a tight row of cars and made another right hand turn before he even got past the red light.

I called the cops, told them what happened, told them what happened, gave them the plate, and then they told me that unless he physically struck me, it's "not" a crime they're going to address. I asked if I video would help, and they said maybe.

I REALLY need to get a camera now, as this is the third incident I've encountered this season alone. Ugh...

B. Carfree

I suspect at least part of the lack of increase in reported injuries/fatalities is from the starvation diet that our human infrastructure has been on these past few decades. When no one will even take a report, then there is no evidence of anything having happened. Add in the whopping increase in the number of people without health insurance and you have even more injured cyclists who won't show up because they are self-treating something they would have previously sought out a physician for.

I have no way of knowing if this is as significant as the lack of children riding bikes in the data or not, but it sure doesn't seem like we have created any sort of safe-haven for cycling in NYC or anywhere else in the U.S. I'd love to be wonderfully wrong about this.

Bekologist

That seems a bit saccharine a sentiment, b carfree. and that CBHI kid claim? The demographic in nyc child riders hasn't shifted wildly in the last decade, except there's unquestionably MORE kids riding again with their parents in NYC...



Will bikes bring the societal bliss b carfree wants? Doubtful.

Can New York City triple ridership in a decade all the while increasing cyclists safety?

According to the indicators, yes.

dynodonn 

Or put under duress to stop their children from riding, as in the case of one of our forum members, BikeMom Tn.

gcottay

If you would first READ the NYT piece you probably wouldn't be posting drivel like this and might even make a constructive contribution.

hagen2456

Interesting theory. Please do the research. You just may be able to find the connection - just like traffic researchers seem to have found that bicycle accidents happen for a number of well defined reasons. You know, like: Car hits biker, biker breaks his neck, biker dies. But wait... they also probably drank water that day. But so did all the bikers who did not die in an accident. And what about the chauffeur? Oh dear. Logic is difficult.

Meanwhile I'm happy that other researchers have been able to prove that riding a bike is not a very risky way of transport (but that there IS a risk equivalent to that of being a pedestrian); that there's safety in numbers; that helmets don't seem to be of any particular use; that segregated bike lanes (leading somewhere meaningfull) get more people on their bikes; etc. etc. etc.

genec

Of course the same might be said to Bek who also appears to have missed the point of the news story he linked and has started the thread with some rather misleading statements.

I think if Bek wants to go down this "path" he needs to show the graph he has indicated in his post and perhaps something to back up his statements... rather than this somewhat unrelated news item.

Bekologist

i'm sorry, gene, i was just posting a graphic showing the indexed accident rate for bicyclists and bicyclist participation in New York City.

I made no comment about the article other than a simple mention that's where i sourced the graph

genec

What graph?

lostarchitect 

It's a PDF. He added it as an image, but it should have been a link.

This is the link: https://home2.nyc.gov/html/dot/downlo..._indicator.pdf

genec

I didn't even see this in the link on the OP. Was it a link from that page on helmets? Was it a link from a link from a link? How far removed was it from the link he did post?

Bekologist

seventy two percent less chance of getting in a serious bike crash in NYC according to NYCDOT 's than a decade ago.

sorry for fooling everyone with the crazy links (?) and the pdf image???

I think this is significant statistic for bicycling safety. Quite a significant depiction of, if not 'safety in numbers' of something remarkably similar yeah, it couldn't have been the bicycle infrastructure in NYC, it must have been a transit strike, yeah, that's what drove cycling growth in NYC......

CB HI

gcottay, since Beks OP had nothing to do with the article, why do you expect my response to focus on the article rather than Bek's posted claims. So stop posting YOUR drivel and try a constructive contribution for once.

Bekologist

I have strong doubts the changing demographics in child cycling rates has anything to do with the change in raw accident numbers in the last 10 years in New York City.

dubious to say the least. shockingly more more kids riding to school in new york city only ten years ago? And what is this about my posted claims?

All i did was post a graph from the New York City Department of Transportation, fercrissakes.

John Forester

The point is that nobody knows the causes of the change in crash rate, and none of the typical suspects has shown evidence of operation. Without such a study, it is no more than ideological cant to claim anything.

Bekologist

"....none of the typical suspects has shown any evidence of operation?"



It's accepted in serious circles that the raw, enormous boom in cyclist participation are the prime drivers of the safety statistic seen in the graph from the NYCDOT. oh, that and the infrastructure that led riders to the streets of new amsterdam again.....



this phenomenon is exhibited in city after city that takes steps to normalize bike traffic across the street grid.

*que rod serling*

Roughstuff

Hey Bek I can't remember if I asked ya this question before...but I'll ask again. I am wondering...does NYC close certain streets on a regular and rotating basis to only bicycle and foot traffic? And if so is this part of the comprehensive plan to increase ridership?

Maybe they don't need helmets because when they fall they squish a pedestrian!

roughstuff

lostarchitect 

He didn't link it correctly. If you click on the broken image link in the first post, you'll see it.